how to organize formula that relies on platform-independent data files that themselves require building?

[aryairani]

Output of brew config

n/a

Output of brew doctor

n/a

Description of issue

I've got Haskell project A, a command-line tool with a built-in web service, and Node project B, which generates the static html/js resources for the built-in web service in A.

The output of B, since it's just html/css/js files, doesn't change based on which OS or architecture it's built with.

Option 1: Currently we have a formula for A that treats B as a resource that's retrieved and staged during the built of A, but that seemed wasteful to me — A does need to be built for each OS and architecture, so this ends up building B multiple times as well — once for each bottle of A, which seem somewhat wasteful.

Option 2: I make a separate formula for B, and then A's formula depends_on "B"; I reference the specific files as (Formula["B"].opt_share/"b-stuff") in a launcher script for A. But even though brew --build-bottle detects that B is relocatable, it doesn't detect that it's platform independent, so I still would end up having to build B multiple times for no clear reason other than "because".

[SMillerDev]

If it doesn't register as platform independent that means it's detecting something specific for the platform. Making a pull request would be the only real way to debug that

[aryairani]

Hi @SMillerDev Ok thanks — well ok actually two questions — as I'm rereading my question and your answer, I'm not sure how I determined that "it doesn't detect that it's platform independent", maybe it just listed the OS in the bottle block that was output?

So question 1: Is there actually such a thing as a platform-independent bottle, and what does that look like in the bottle block? Is it just missing the arm64_sonoma: key(is this a key? I don't really know ruby) on the sha256 line? or is there a key that means platform-independent?

And question 2: Would it be okay homebrew etiquette to create the pull request just to debug that? I'm guessing yes from your answer; but would have assumed not, otherwise. :) I can do that.

[aryairani]

And then apart from the question of possibly-duplicative bottles, did you also have any feedback about whether Option 1 vs Option 2 is better? Or some other option? Thanks!!

[SMillerDev]

So question 1: Is there actually such a thing as a platform-independent bottle, and what does that look like in the bottle block? Is it just missing the arm64_sonoma: key(is this a key? I don't really know ruby) on the sha256 line? or is there a key that means platform-independent?

The key would be :all in that case.

And question 2: Would it be okay homebrew etiquette to create the pull request just to debug that? I'm guessing yes from your answer; but would have assumed not, otherwise. :) I can do that.

Sure.

[aryairani]

I tried creating the PR here, but CI was cancelled due to the github repo for the static resources having few stars. Homebrew/homebrew-core#161979 😅